Abstract
As groups develop, members’ knowledge and expectations regarding the task and the group tend to converge. Such convergence allows members to anticipate and coordinate their own and others’ actions, facilitating productive group work. Using zero-history laboratory groups, this study analyzes the presence and trajectory of cognitive convergence as groups worked on a series of three similar tasks. We focus on two types of convergence: anticipatory expectations for future work, and reflective assessments regarding previous group discussions. Results indicate immediate convergence for reflective cognitions but delayed convergence for anticipatory cognitions. Associations among the different types of convergence also vary at the group- and individual-levels of analysis. The discussion addresses measurement implications of both types of convergence in regard to emergence of group-like cognitive structures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow H, Poole MS, Henry KB, Wheelan S, Moreland R (2004) Time, change, and development: the temporal perspective on groups. Small Group Res 35(1):73–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403259757
Bonito JA, Meyers RA (2011) Examining functional communication as egocentric or group-centric: application of a latent group model. Commun Monogr 78(4):463–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2011.618138
Bonito JA, Ruppel EK (2011) An application of the socioegocentric model to information-sharing discussions: in search of group-level communication influences. Commun Res 38(3):356–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210377195
Bonito JA, Sanders RE (2011) The existential center of small groups: member’s conduct and interaction. Small Group Res 42(3):343–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410385472
Bonito JA, Ruppel EK, Keyton J (2012) Reliability estimates for multilevel designs in group research. Small Group Res 43(4):443–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412437614
Bonito JA, Gastil J, Ervin JN, Meyers RA (2014) At the convergence of input and process models of group discussion: a comparison of participation rates across time, persons, and groups. Commun Monogr 81(2):179–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.883081
Bonito JA, Ervin JN, Staggs SM (2016) Estimation and application of the latent group model. Group Dyn: Theory Res Pract 20(3):126–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000044
Briggs RO, De Vreede GJ, Nunamaker JF Jr (2003) Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. J Manag Inf Syst 19(4):31–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045743
Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan NJ (ed). Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 221–246
Coultas CW, Driskell T, Burke CS, Salas E (2014) A conceptual review of emergent state measurement current problems, future solutions. Small Group Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414552285
Davis JH (1973) Group decision and social interaction: a theory of social decision schemes. Psychol Rev 80(2):97–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033951
Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Fuller MA, Schneider C (2006) Research standards for promotion and tenure in information systems. MIS Q 30(1):1–12
Franco LA, Meadows M (2007) Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring methods: on the role of cognitive style. J Oper Res Soc 58(12):1621–1629. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602346
Gastil J (2009) The group in society. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Gersick CJG (1988) Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Acad Manag J 31(1):9–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/256496
Gersick CJG, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47(1):65–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-D
Gonzalez R, Griffin D (2002) Modeling the personality of dyads and groups. J Pers 70(6):901–924. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.05027
Gouran DS, Hirokawa RY (1996) Functional theory and communication in decision-making and problem-solving groups: An expanded view. In: Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (eds) Communication and group decision making. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 55–80
Hewes DE (1996) Small group communication may not influence decision making: An amplification of socio-egocentric theory. In: Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (eds) Communication and group decision making, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 179–212
Hewes DE (2009) The influence of communication processes on group outcomes: antithesis and thesis. Hum Commun Res 35(2):249–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01347.x
Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull 121(1):43–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43
Hox JJ (2010) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications, 2nd edn. Quantitative methodology series. Routledge, New York
Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psychol Today 5:43–46
Kelly J, Futoran GC, McGrath JE (1990) Capacity and capability: seven studies of entrainment of task performance rates. Small Group Res 21(3):283–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496490213001
Keyton J (1991) Evaluating individual group member satisfaction as a situational variable. Small Group Res 22(2):200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496491222004
Kozlowski SWJ, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. (pp 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Kozlowski SW, Chao GT, Grand JA, Braun MT, Kuljanin G (2016) Capturing the multilevel dynamics of emergence: computational modeling, simulation, and virtual experimentation. Organ Psychol Rev 6(1):3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614547955
Langan-Fox J, Anglim J, Wilson JR (2004) Mental models, team mental models, and performance: process, development, and future directions. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind 14(4):331–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20004
Ledermann T, Kenny DA (2012) The common fate model for dyadic data: variations of a theoretically important but underutilized model. J Fam Psychol 26(1):140–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026624
Marcus DK, Leatherwood JC (1998) The interpersonal circle at zero acquaintance: a social relations analysis. J Res Pers 32(3):297–313. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2222
Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):356–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785
Mathieu JE, Heffner TS, Goodwin GF, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273
McComb SA (2007) Mental model convergence: the shift from being an individual to being a team member. In: Dansereau F, Yammarino F (eds) Multi-level issues in organizations and time (vol 6, pp 95–147). Emerald Group Publishing Limited
McComb SA, Kennedy D, Perryman R, Warner N, Letsky M (2010) Temporal patterns of mental model convergence: implications for distributed teams interacting in electronic collaboration spaces. Hum Factors 52(2):264–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810370458
Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):530–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0
Mohammed S, Ferzandi L, Hamilton K (2010) Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J Manag 36(4):876–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309356804
Park HS (2008) The effects of shared cognition on group satisfaction and performance: politeness and efficiency in group interaction. Commun Res 35(1):88–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207309363
Pavitt C (1993) Does communication matter in social influence during small group discussion? Five positions. Commun Stud 44(3–4):216–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979309368396
Peters M, Lecci L (2012) Predicting verdicts, adherence to judge’s instructions, and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense. Psychol Crime Law 18(9):817–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.566872
Pilny A, Poole MS, Reichelmann A, Klein B (2017) A structurational group decision-making perspective on the commons dilemma: results from an online public goods game. J Appl Commun Res 45(4):413–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1355559
Poole MS (1983) Decision development in small groups III: a multiple sequence model of group decision development. Commun Monogr 50:321–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390173
Poole MS, Roth J (1989) Decision development in small groups IV: a typology of group decision paths. Hum Commun Res 15(3):323–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1989.tb00188.x
Poole MS, Seibold DR, McPhee RD (1985) Group decision-making as a structurational process. Q J Speech 71(1):74–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638509383719
Poole MS, Seibold DR, McPhee RD (1996) The structuration of group decisions. In: Hirokawa RY, Poole MS (eds) Communication and group decision making, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 114–146
Putnam LL, Stohl C (1990) Bona fide groups: a reconceptualization of groups in context. Commun Stud 41(3):248–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979009368307
Rouse WB, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1992) The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 22(6):1296–1308. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.199457
Seibold DR, Meyers RA (2007) Group argument: a structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Res 38(3):312–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301966
Stapleton LM, Yang JS, Hancock GR (2016) Construct meaning in multilevel settings. J Educ Behav Stat 41:481–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616646200
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decis Sci 27(3):451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00860.x
Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations, vol 3. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Staggs, S.M., Bonito, J.A. & Ervin, J.N. Measuring and Evaluating Convergence Processes Across a Series of Group Discussions. Group Decis Negot 27, 715–733 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9560-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-9560-3